Detailed ActionNotice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 24 July 2024 is in compliance with 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98, and has been considered.
Examiner Note
It is noted that all references hereinafter to Applicant’s specification are to the published application US 20240297327 A1 unless otherwise stated. Additionally, any italicized, bolded, or underlined text utilized hereinafter is to be interpreted as emphasis placed thereupon.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph [0343] has a numbering error, wherein the abutment is incorrectly numbered 108 when it should be numbered 118. The last sentence of the paragraph should then read “Between the cell suspension element 202 and the abutment 118, there is thus…”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 11 are objected to because of the following informality: improper indentation. Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation. See 37 CFR 1.75(i), MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claims 11 and 12 are objected to because of the following informality: an improper series of dependent claims. Claim 11 is dependent upon dependent claim 2. Likewise, claim 12 is dependent upon dependent claim 10.
A series of singular dependent claims is permissible in which a dependent claim refers to a preceding claim which, in turn, refers to another preceding claim.
A claim which depends from a dependent claim should not be separated by any claim which does not also depend from said dependent claim. It should be kept in mind that a dependent claim may refer to any preceding independent claim. In general, applicant’s sequence will not be changed. See MPEP § 608.01(n).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yamano et al. (US 9368825 B2, “Yamano”).
Regarding Claims 1, 2, 13, and 15, Yamano discloses a fuel cell stack that is mounted in a vehicle body (i.e. a fuel cell device, [0037]) comprising a projecting portion of the projecting load receivers (i.e. cell suspension elements, see 68 of 64a and 64b in figures 3 and 4) connecting the fuel cell stack directly to tightening members (i.e. abutments, [0040], see 24 and 26 in figure 7) via a positive-locking bonding manner (see the relationship between 64a/64b and 24 in figure 7). Between the projection of the projecting load receivers and the tightening members lies cushioning members (i.e. a damping element, see 104a in Figure 7, [0072] and [0075]). Regarding Claims 4-7, Yamano discloses the tightening members as having a surface facing away from the cell and a surface facing the cell (see Figure 7 annotated below), and the projection of the projecting load receiver as having a surface facing the cell (see Figure 7 annotated below). Furthermore, the projection of the projecting load receiver is jointly engaged with the recess of the tightening member (i.e. the cell suspension is anchored in the abutment, Figure 7, [0058]) and the tightening member has suspension counter-elements in which the projection of the projecting load receiver is fixed (i.e. the cell suspension element is anchored in the abutment see figure 7 annotated below) which connects via a positive-locking manner.
PNG
media_image1.png
565
627
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 7 of Yamano, annotated by the examiner
Regarding Claims 8-11, Yamano discloses each cell of the fuel cell stack as being equipped with a projection of the projecting load receiver (i.e. a cell suspension element, see Figure 8, [0058]). Furthermore, each individual cell has a plurality of projections of the projecting load receivers (see Figure 7, there being a projection of the projecting load receiver on either long side of the cell) which therefore means that the plurality of cells in the fuel stack each have a plurality of projections of the projecting load receivers (i.e. cell suspension elements, see Figures 1 and 8).
The tightening member further comprises two walls which face one another (e.g. suspension counter elements, see figure 7) and forms a space therebetween such that the projection of the projecting load receiver may fix the cell to the tightening member in a positive-locking manner (see figure 7 annotated below).
PNG
media_image2.png
565
484
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 7 of Yamano, annotated by the examiner
Regarding Claims 12, Yamano discloses the region between the tightening member and the fuel cell stack as being divided into a plurality of channels wherein the tightening member and the projection of the projecting load receiver are coupled between channels (i.e. the region between the fuel cell stack and the stack enclosure is divided into a plurality of channel portions, wherein cell suspension elements are located between adjacent channel portions, see Figures 3 and 7 of Yamano, specifically the discharge passages 40, 42, 44, 46, 48, and 50).
PNG
media_image3.png
797
417
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 7 of Yamano, annotated by the examiner
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 3 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamano in view of Kullen et al. (DE 102020120293 A1, machine translation used hereafter, “Kullen”).
Regarding Claim 3, Yamano discloses the projection of the projecting load receiver as being connected to the tightening member, however does not disclose it featuring an undercut, a frame, or channels between the fuel cell stack and the housing. Kullen discloses an electrochemical device featuring a fuel cell stack secured via a frame and elastomer part within a housing. The frame comprises several recess areas which engages behind an area of the elastomer part due to a frame undercut area engaging behind the elastomer part (see [0082] and [0168] of Kullen).
Yamano and Kullen each constitute prior art which is directly analogous to the claimed invention: fuel cell stacks. Therefore, in view of the combined teachings of the prior art, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the relationship between the projection of the projecting load receiver and tightening member of Yamano, wherein the projection of the projecting load receiver is formed on a frame and features an undercut so as to better secure the fuel cell stack to the housing via this positive-locking connection (see [0078]-[0080] and [0168] of Kullen).
Therefore, Yamano in view of Kullen discloses the connection between the projection of the projecting load receiver on the frame and the tightening member of the housing as forming an undercut (i.e. the connection of the cell suspension element to the abutment comprises an undercut, [0164] and [0165] of Kullen; see Figure 7 of Yamano).
Regarding Claim 16, Yamano discloses a projection of the projecting load receiver (i.e. a cell suspension element, see discussion of claims above) but does not disclose it as being formed upon a cell frame element (the projection of the projecting load receiver sits directly upon the separator, see figures 3 and 7 of Yamano, [0028]). Kullen discloses a frame (i.e. a cell frame element) which acts as a stop for the fuel cell stack against a housing of the electrochemical device (see [0090] of Kullen). Yamano and Kullen each constitute prior art which is directly analogous to the claimed invention: fuel cell stacks. Therefore, in view of the combined teachings of the prior art, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the projection of the projecting load receiver of Yamano so as to be coupled to the frame in order to better secure the fuel cell stack within the housing and prevent damage to the separator (see discussion of the frame and projecting load receiver above). Therefore, Yamano in view of Kullen discloses frame (i.e. a cell frame element, 128 in Figure 1, [0134] of Kullen) on which is formed the projection of the projecting load member (i.e. the cell suspension frame element comprises a cell suspension element formed on a cell frame element, see figure 7 of Yamano, [0164] of Kullen).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamano in view of Lai et al. (US 20230138029 A1, “Lai”).
Regarding Claim 14, Yamano discloses a fuel cell device but is silent regarding a sensor element for detecting a force.
Lai discloses a shock-force mitigation system for electrochemical fuel cell stacks which features a system sensor that detects the onset of mechanical shock to the fuel cell stack (see [0040] and [0043] of Lai). Yamano and Lai each constitute prior art which is directly analogous to the claimed invention: fuel cell stacks. Therefore, in view of the combined teachings of the prior art, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fuel cell device of Yamano so as to include a sensor capable of detecting a force being applied to the fuel cell device (see [0012], [0040], and [0043] of Lai). Therefore, Yamano in view of Lai discloses a fuel cell stack comprising a sensor capable of detecting a force that acts upon the fuel cell stack (i.e. a sensor element for detecting a force and/or a change in the fuel cell device attributable to the effect of the force, see the shock mitigation system described in [0040] and [0043] of Lai).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL P MALONEY whose telephone number is (571)270-1730. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 7:30a-5p, F: 7:30a-4p.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Aaron Austin can be reached at (571) 272-8935. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL PATRICK MALONEY/Examiner, Art Unit 1782
/ANTHONY J FROST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782
